<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [REGYCON] FW: [council] IDN mailing list
Hi,
Well, i guess if the chair of the exWG objects, then we probably
should not try to use the old list. and should explore the idea of
creating a new list on the basis that was discussed. Of course if
the council still has issues with the creation of any list for IDN
then we should not create a list. We probably need to decide whether
there is council support for creating an idn-discuss list. During
the last conversation there were some issues brought up and I am not
sure whether the discussion so far has addressed those issues.
a.
On 3 dec 2007, at 09.25, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
With Ram's permission, I am forwarded a message he sent to the RyC
list regarding the establishment of an IDN list.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original
transmission."
From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-
L@NIC.MUSEUM] On Behalf Of Ram Mohan
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
To: REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM
Subject: Re: [REGYCON] FW: [council] IDN mailing list
Chuck, all:
I see no reason to use the old list for a new set of discussions
that may be orthogonal or tangential to the original discussions.
The original IDN WG mailing list should have been closed at the
closure of the prior working group. To reuse it, and to
automatically opt-in its members to a new list with new rules and
new charters does not make much sense to me.
The second issue is that I expect the new discussions will be
primarily on gTLD IDN matters; the IDN WG list was populated by a
large array of folks, only a few from the gTLDs.
The third issue is that when the list is now populated with the new
topics, archives will appear as if the group took a 6-month hiatus,
and resumed its deliberations on the same topics, which would be
misleading (to say the least).
Is it really so hard to setup a new list, solicit participants
(even get the vetted emails of members from the current list), and
start out? This should not be such a difficult step.
. . .
Thanks,
Ram
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|